Last I read the BATFE has the resources to inspect all federally licensed firearms dealers in the country once every 7 years.

I would appreciate a citation, if anyone finds one.

Dealers vary in size and business volume, and BATFE has discretion in inspections, within the bounds of the law. BATFE can only inspect a dealer once a year, unless violations are found, under legislation to inhibit harassment.

that a firearm dealer must fill out when an unlicensed person purchases or acquires two or more handguns at one time or during five consecutive business days.

Quote:

As to it being trivial to spread the purchases out...I disagree. You can hit one dealer per week, but that drives up the cost and still makes your straw buyer more suspicious.

BATFE can and does audit licensee records to correlate purchase activity. Go to the BATFE web site and read their press releases to see what they prosecute. I'm sure you'll find some prosecutions for straw purchases.

Last I read the BATFE has the resources to inspect all federally licensed firearms dealers in the country once every 7 years.

I would appreciate a citation, if anyone finds one.

Dealers vary in size and business volume, and BATFE has discretion in inspections, within the bounds of the law. BATFE can only inspect a dealer once a year unless violations are found under legislation to inhibit harassment.

I will try to find it, I don't remember if it was in a book I am reading or from a news article. I did find this:

USAToday wrote:

ATF records show the agency had 1,622 agents and 826 industry investigators in 1973 compared with 2,574 agents and 833 investigators in 2012.

I do not remember off the top of my head how many licensed dealers there are in the country, but if an inspection entails physically visiting the shop then there is a very low limit on what 833 investigators can accomplish.

This nugget was also sad:

Quote:

Several former ATF agents say the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act has hampered the agency's ability to enforce gun laws, because it limits their resources.

"For all practical purposes, (the act) made it not impossible but very, very difficult to police both licensed and unlicensed dealers both from a regulatory point of view and a criminal prosecution point of view," said William Vizzard, a professor of criminal justice at California State University-Sacramento and a former ATF agent.

One provision in the law Vizzard cited as particularly vexing to the ATF was that false record keeping for dealers was reduced to a misdemeanor, meaning if an ATF agent audited a gun dealer missing 1,200 guns, the dealer could not be charged with a federal offense.

"You just don't get many U.S. attorneys filing misdemeanors in federal court," he said.

Corrupt dealers will often claim that a firearm that turned up at a crime scene was lost or stolen. Absent annual inventories, ATF must rely on on-site inspections to ascertain whether a dealer has accounted for every firearm he has bought or sold. That was made more difficult by the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, which limits ATF to a single dealer inspection per year, regardless of that dealer’s track record. ATF officially claims to have 776 "inspectors" to examine 60,000 FFLs. But as spokeswoman Ginger Colbrun explained, only about 600 officers actually conduct inspections while the remainder are administrators. In addition, those 600 officers are responsible not only for inspecting active gun dealers but explosives dealers and prospective dealers. In 2011, less than half of the inspections conducted by those 600 officers were of active retail and wholesale gun sellers. "We do the best job that we can and visit as many dealers as possible," Colbrun said, "but with the resources we have we're not going to get to every dealer every year."

In January, the agency made a presentation at the "SHOT" firearms exhibition in Las Vegas which singled out dealer inspections as a major priority and "risk assessment tool," and specifically noted that some FFLs are not inspected "for more than 5 years." An ATF official said they are currently trying to visit each dealer at least once every five years.

This section just before the quoted part was also interesting:

Quote:

No dealer inventories

Yet another Tiahrt amendment bars the ATF from forcing gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms, which the NRA’s Cox describes as a “laborious and time-consuming process” and “generally unnecessary.” In fact, unlike automobile dealers who have a pretty good idea when a car is missing from the lot, gun dealers seem to lose track of firearms all the time. In 2010, ATF inspections of less than 10 percent of firearms licensees identified more than 31,000 missing weapons. Unlike gun dealers, explosives dealers, also regulated by ATF, are required to keep annual inventories....For ATF investigators, a large number of lost or stolen firearms from a particular dealer can be a red flag that the dealer may be selling to criminals. An ATF study in 2000 found that more than 57 percent of crime gun traces in 1998 came from just 1.2 percent of gun dealers. The Washington, D.C.-area snipers, who murdered 10 people in the course of a three week shooting spree in 2002, obtained their assault rifle from a Tacoma, Washington, dealer with a long history of “missing” firearms.

I'd say the closest you can get would buying 80%s and finishing them. Not something the average criminal wants to do.Mexican cartels? With their money, I'm sure they have machine shops. They probably CNC from 0%s (AKA block of metal).

There is the CMP, which after joining and jumping through a bunch of hoops: proving firearms training and activity and passing a background check, they will mail you rifles right to your door.

As for cartels, why bother when you have an organization already devoted to smuggling? Just need to find a source to bring them into the country from somewhere else, a corrupt official to allow you to loot government warehouses, or just collect them after shootouts. Sure, manufacturing would be in their realm of capabilities, but why bother?

I don't know about for guns, but for cash deposits that is called structuring, and can land you five years in prison.

There's no structuring for multiple transfers from a licensee. In fact most licensees will discourage anyone from doing this because of the need to fill out forms (and there being no law against informing the transfer recipient, as in retail banking). It would be typical for a licensee to offer to hold the second (or subsequent) handguns until a later visit.

Note that the current Form 4473 has five lines for firearms being transferred. I recall that previous editions of Form 4473 had six lines and a note that additional firarms could be recorded on the reverse, or on an attached sheet.

I see also that the current edition of Form 4473 also has a specific note for gun shows, that the name, city, and State of the event be recorded.

I do not remember off the top of my head how many licensed dealers there are in the country, but if an inspection entails physically visiting the shop then there is a very low limit on what 833 investigators can accomplish.

If I recall correctly the special agents and the investigators both visit licensees, but, I think, the investigators aren't allowed to carry arms for their duties like agents. If I'm correct, then it seems like a misrepresentation to only count the investigators.

Quote:

Quote:

Several former ATF agents say the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act has hampered the agency's ability to enforce gun laws, because it limits their resources.

"For all practical purposes, (the act) made it not impossible but very, very difficult to police both licensed and unlicensed dealers both from a regulatory point of view and a criminal prosecution point of view," said William Vizzard, a professor of criminal justice at California State University-Sacramento and a former ATF agent.

'Unlicensed dealing' being a crime that BATFE prosecutes, I think this mention of 'unlicensed dealers' is purposely misleading.

The article is extremely vague on how 1986 FOPA might limit their resources. Licensees can only be visited once a year, as I mentioned previously, unless prior visits revealed infractions. This doesn't count traces and investigations of crimes, of course. I know of no other limitations in FOPA, and it doesn't seem like this limit would be a significant impediment to enforcement.

Quote:

Quote:

For ATF investigators, a large number of lost or stolen firearms from a particular dealer can be a red flag that the dealer may be selling to criminals. An ATF study in 2000 found that more than 57 percent of crime gun traces in 1998 came from just 1.2 percent of gun dealers. The Washington, D.C.-area snipers, who murdered 10 people in the course of a three week shooting spree in 2002, obtained their assault rifle from a Tacoma, Washington, dealer with a long history of “missing” firearms.

Wasn't that dealer prosecuted for some violations, despite there being no indication of anything other than theft? The suspects said they stole the rifle.

There was an overnight break-in at one dealer of my acquaintance, despite strong security. A ladder was used to enter through a roof ventilation unit before motion sensors triggered an alarm. The burglar or burglars smashed a glass case, stole four pistols and escaped before law officers arrived. Considering the number of firearms in stock, this was fortunately only a minor incident.

Edit: The rifle in question was also not an assault rifle, despite being so labeled in the article, and being a new production rifle during the 1994-2004 ban, was also not an assault weapon. With media reports like this, it should be no surprise we've banned machineguns four or five times now.

One of the problems I have with the NRA is that their prescription of 'enforcing the current laws' is not liberal, and the current laws are unconstitutional and chillingly authoritarian.

No they aren't.

Let's agree that the courts haven't yet struck down most federal or State gun-control laws, although they've remanded several back down recently with Heller and McDonald, and call it a day.

Sure.

I have doubts about your ability to stick to calling it a day though

We've just gone through why any federal law that rests on Miller is bereft of validity, despite the obvious court rulings otherwise. You know why I state that laws infringing on the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional, even if you (and most judges) disagree.

McDonald holds that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, recognized in Heller two years ago, is protected against infringement by state and local governments. The holding was virtually dictated by any honest reading of the Court's substantive due process precedents, and a plurality of four Justices reached this unsurprising conclusion.

The most interesting aspect of the decision is Justice Thomas' concurrence, which rejects the plurality's reliance on the judicial fiction of substantive due process. Thomas relies instead on the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. His opinion is scholarly and judicious, and it cements his standing as the only Justice who is more than a half-hearted originalist. Thomas confines himself to the issue presented, which involves only the right to keep and bear arms, and explains why stare decisis should not foreclose an originalist approach in this case.

Quote:

The plurality [...] reaffirm a number of irresponsible dicta in the Heller opinion that endorsed various gun control regulations that were not at issue in either case.

The article is extremely vague on how 1986 FOPA might limit their resources.

You should read the 2nd article I linked.

And we both should read The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but when making a point it's considered good form to provide a short quote.

I think the restrictions to which you refer are not created by the 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act, unless you count the bar on creating a national registration database. I don't think a law against national gun registration can be counted as depriving BATFE of resources.

Quote:

In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden’s Gun Violence Commission, 108 academic researchers complained that the ATF’s funding was “stagnating” while the budgets of law enforcement agencies such as the FBI had seen “dramatic expansions.” Since 1972, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s staff has more than doubled, while the FBI’s is up by two-thirds. The ATF’s current budget of $1.15 billion is little changed from the $900 million it received 10 years ago.

It does explain BATFE's preoccupation with staging unnecessary but high-profile enforcement actions like the Waco raid, and the agency's envy of the FBI, doesn't it? Actually, I just realised that the article refers to 'ATF' throughout, instead of 'BATFE', following BATFE's strong preference to be perceived as a 'three letter agency'.

Quote:

One gun database that worksJoseph Vince, a former ATF special agent and now a partner at Crime Gun Solutions, a consulting firm, says solving gun crimes is all about gathering information and having the tools to make sense out of it. He says U.S. gun laws often make that work far more difficult. “People talk about 9/11 and not connecting the dots; but when we talk about gun laws, we’re taking the dots off the paper.” Vince says concerns that a centralized database of guns and gun owners will lead to gun confiscation have been disproved by 80 years of history with the National Firearms Act, a 1934 law that requires citizens who own machine guns, short-barrel shotguns and certain other highly dangerous weapons to register them with the federal government. Owners of NFA firearms, as they are known, are fingerprinted, photographed and subjected to an FBI background check, and the serial numbers of their guns are kept in a federal database, whose contents, Vince says, have never been divulged outside of a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. Most important, these weapons are rarely used to commit crimes. The NFA has effectively removed these guns from the criminal marketplace.

This strongly implies that the NFRTR is a database without errors, which is not an accurate claim. It also tells us that at least one private firm, Crime Gun Solutions, has a financial interest connected with BATFE.

Quote:

But 85 percent of traced crime guns had changed hands at least once before being recovered by law enforcement, and none of those secondary buyers were run through the NICS system.

This tacitly ignores that theft, sale of stolen property and transfers to prohibited persons aren't going to be recorded, by definition. In other words, it deliberately lumps together licit and illicit transfers.

Quote:

ATF investigations helped win more than 68,000 convictions between 2005 and 2010, sending more than 55,000 criminals to prison for an average of 15 years each.

This doesn't sound to me like an enforcement agency that needs more laws to do its job.

The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. We are one of the country's oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To enhance democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism

It may not be partisan, but it's cleared biased in favor of additional gun control.

A linked article on the same site says:

Quote:

ATF had licensed some 65,000 firearms dealers as of fiscal 2011, when it conducted 13,159 “compliance” inspections. ATF doesn’t release detailed inspection findings for each dealer, but says about half were “in full compliance.” The most common violations are failures to record gun transactions properly. The ATF revoked 71 dealers’ licenses in 2011, but what these dealers did to warrant that penalty isn’t disclosed either. The allegations usually surface only after a dealer decides to fight the revocation in federal court, where pleadings are public record.

Quote:

The magistrate noted that [after 30 years] more than 100 firearms acquired by Taylor had “disappeared without a trace,” which, he said, “presents significant potential concerns for public safety.”

Firearms aren't magic, they're just tools. Do unaccounted-for automobiles or radio transceivers present significant potential concerns for public safety?

I wouldn't lose much sleep if "universal background checks" were implemented, we already have that in my state for handguns. Of course that hasn't prevented my state from being a net-exporter of crime guns, and being one of the states that folks like Bloomberg accusingly point their finger at for their crime problems.

That said I'm in no rush to support it either, giving that there's vanishingly little evidence that it would do any real good, and just cause for suspecting that such a system would be used to further erode gun

Preliminary evidence suggests that the increase in the diversion of guns to criminals linked to the law’s repeal may have translated into increases in homicides committed with firearms. From 1999 through 2007, Missouri’s age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year. In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase. For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean. This increase was out of synch with changes during that period in age-adjusted homicide rates nationally which decreased ten percent and with changes in other states in the Midwest which declined by 5%.

Despite a state low prohibiting the creation of a firearms registry, the Pennsylvania State Police keeps all of the transaction records in a searchable database. When challenged in court the PSP claims that it's not a registry since it's not all-inclusive. You aren't required to register a pistol you brought with you if you moved into the state, and there are a few exceptions to the "universal background check" like inheritances and spouses.

At the same time police officers call it a registry, and officers in the field have the ability to run the serial number of a handgun against it, and will often seize a firearm that doesn't show up in the database or shows up under a different name.

Presuming for the sake of argument that the authors conclusions are correct, that the rise in gun homicides is attributable to the expiration of the law:

A state can't repeal Federal law, so all retail firearms sales would have still been subject to background checks. Reading that article it appears the expired Missouri law was far more than just "universal background checks". The law also included a "permit to purchase" system, in which prospective gun buyers were required to arrange an interview with the local sheriff who had discretion over issuing the permit.

That probably explains far more than the private sales aspect. I can't imagine that many people looking to straw-purchase for a prohibited person would be too keen to sit through a face-to-face interview with the local sheriff.

Also being Missouri, I'd be willing to bet that Sheriff's exercised the "discretion" afforded to them by the law to refuse to issue purchase permits to darker-skinned residents. Which given the disproportionate rate that blacks are represented in violent crime statistics probably would help to keep guns away from violent criminals, but even if it were effective that still wouldn't justify such an injustice.

The ATF already has the capability to run firearms traces, it just requires a bit of effort and not the stroke of a keyboard.

It's a pity the ATF has been gutted by lobbying from the NRA then, isn't it?

Look, you guys can't have it both ways. Either you're in favour of enforcement and prosecution of criminals and straw purchasers who make your side look bad - in which case you should be in favour of boosting the ATF and improving traceability of weapons used in crimes - or you're opposed to anything which might lead to your name being on a database somewhere, in which case you're both paranoid, far too late, and lose any right to complain when the ATF struggles to get anything done and prosecutors can't proceed to trial.

According to a recent decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, it is. The state of Illinois, as the last state in the nation without any form of legal carry, has until this summer to implement a carry permit system.

.Darien wrote:

Look, you guys can't have it both ways. Either you're in favour of enforcement and prosecution of criminals and straw purchasers who make your side look bad - in which case you should be in favour of boosting the ATF and improving traceability of weapons used in crimes - or you're opposed to anything which might lead to your name being on a database somewhere, in which case you're both paranoid, far too late, and lose any right to complain when the ATF struggles to get anything done and prosecutors can't proceed to trial.

This sounds rather like the old "if you don't have anything to hide" argument. I guess you think that civil-libertarians concerned about the use of surveillance drones and street cameras are paranoid crack-pots too.

The barrier to entry for carrying concealed weapons should always be as high as reasonably possible, if you are going to allow them at all. I regard that as self-evident.

I don't agree with your axiom, so conclusions drawn from it are unconvincing. That's setting aside that "as high as reasonably possible" is just a way of saying "if we can make it impossible, we should do so". I don't think we have good stats. Given the way humans work, simply going through the process of getting a license for CCA may make that person less likely to commit a crime.

But, remember, I previously suggested licensing in the first place. Concealed Carry would just be a modification to that license. The purpose of licensing is that it acts as mild deterrent to casual gun ownership (and the stats show a decent correlation between the simple availability of guns and gun deaths, so if your goal is "reduce gun deaths" then that's a logical method of reaching that goal) while not outright banning the items, and can even de-criminalize currently criminalized weaponry. (Which may or may not have been established as actually being used for crime in the first place.)

For what it's worth, if we're gonna outright ban something, we should ban handguns of all kinds. (Probably for cops, too.) Too easy to conceal, access, use. Basically, all the things that make people want them for defense are why they're used for the most deaths. I don't see people carrying an AR15 around in their back pocket.

.Darien wrote:

How about: "the risk of being attacked performing this task is so low that carrying my pistol will probably increase my risk of injury rather than decrease it."

As long as they don't injure someone else, who cares? Just let it show up in their insurance rates. (The other thing I suggested.)

Firearms dealers are already required to be "diligent in their record keeping".

It's hilarious that you think this is some sort of enforcable requirement. It's intentionally vague.

eXceLon wrote:

And the notion that the firearms industry somehow colludes in trafficking to criminals is entirely supported, and dreamt up by gun control proponents for the sole purpose of demonizing the other side of the debate.

They might not do it knowingly, but they're more than happy to lobby for less and less restrictions on sales because it means they can sell more guns. They're also more than happy to run massive fear campaigns to push paranoid people into stockpiling weapons.

They have an enormous conflict of interest between public safety on the one hand, and sales on the other.

Also being Missouri, I'd be willing to bet that Sheriff's exercised the "discretion" afforded to them by the law to refuse to issue purchase permits to darker-skinned residents. Which given the disproportionate rate that blacks are represented in violent crime statistics probably would help to keep guns away from violent criminals, but even if it were effective that still wouldn't justify such an injustice.

Nice dogwhistle there.

Blacks are overrepresented in violent crime statistics because blacks are overrepresented in poor urban areas.

You should check your hearing. Dog whistles never mention "black" explicitly, that's why they're called "dog whistles", because they're intended to be heard by a specific audience.

Here's a proper dog whistle:

"We need to keep guns out of the hands of urban criminals and drug dealers."

Quote:

Blacks are overrepresented in violent crime statistics because blacks are overrepresented in poor urban areas.

No. This is colorblind racist nonsense. Blacks are overrepresented in violent crime statistics because there is systemic arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing disparity, regardless of "poor urban areas".

Four weeks ago, California state Sen. Leland Yee (D) got a death threat “unlike any other” he has ever received.

“The author of the email specifically stated that if I did not cease our legislative efforts to stop gun violence that he would assassinate me in or around the Capitol,” Yee said in a statement released Thursday. “He stated that he was a trained sniper and his email detailed certain weapons he possessed.”

Four weeks ago, California state Sen. Leland Yee (D) got a death threat “unlike any other” he has ever received.

“The author of the email specifically stated that if I did not cease our legislative efforts to stop gun violence that he would assassinate me in or around the Capitol,” Yee said in a statement released Thursday. “He stated that he was a trained sniper and his email detailed certain weapons he possessed.”

Maybe M. Jones can weigh in on if these actions are unconstitutional or not.

Blacks are overrepresented in violent crime statistics because there is systemic arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing disparity, regardless of "poor urban areas".

I think it's a bit more complex than that. The murder rate among blacks, both as victims and perps, is way higher per capita than whites and concentrates in poor urban areas. You can't really attribute those numbers to the justice system, except for its prior effect on people (perhaps doing time as a teen pushes someone toward crime). America's gun violence problem is first and foremost an urban black violence problem and we should concentrate on that demographic, not the few rich white kids that get murdered in schools.

How is that different than when someone posts a rando story in which a) someone with a gun may have helped stopped a crime, or b) a story about a crime in which a person with a gun may have helped, or c) a link to a story about something crazy a GCA person or politician says? Are those "ad homs" against gun control advocates?

During the second Obama term, however, additional threats are growing. Latin American drug gangs have invaded every city of significant size in the United States. Phoenix is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, and though the states on the U.S./Mexico border may be the first places in the nation to suffer from cartel violence, by no means are they the last.

The president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Numerous intelligence sources have confirmed that foreign terrorists have identified the southern U.S. border as their path of entry into the country.

When the next terrorist attack comes, the Obama administration won’t accept responsibility. Instead, it will do what it does every time: blame a scapegoat and count on Obama’s “mainstream” media enablers to go along....

Meanwhile, President Obama is leading this country to financial ruin, borrowing over a trillion dollars a year for phony “stimulus” spending and other payoffs for his political cronies. Nobody knows if or when the fiscal collapse will come, but if the country is broke, there likely won’t be enough money to pay for police protection. And the American people know it.

Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.

Fine, he didn't threaten to kill everyone but a subset defined down to "media" and "intellectual underpinnings", however you scope that. Kudos for pedantry, that definitely makes it less violent and crazy.

Dietz wrote:

Nope, I won't be home, I'll be out looking for the bureaucrat that sent those cops to my door. And after that, the politician that passed the law to allow for that bureaucrat to give that order, and then the reporter that egged them on.

This is known as Clinton rules of engagement, which are defined as applied to the Serbs in 1999, wherein Clinton decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate targets of war.

...

My point in bringing up what I would be doing is to point out that those in positions of power who usually do not feel the effects of their policies would not be so insulated should door to door confiscation come to pass. My statement is a measured shot across the bow, to try and make those who would be the ones enacting the framework to make this possible realize that it won't just be the poor sap in a uniform that will be reaping the consequences. Like Clinton with the Serbs, those who provide ideological encouragement and public support are fair game, and need to look long and hard at what they are asking for.

So if you, like, don't say you support it in public, then maybe you're cool.

...

He's obviously being an anonymous internet tough-guy bully but the point remains.

How is that different than when someone posts a rando story in which a) someone with a gun may have helped stopped a crime, or b) a story about a crime in which a person with a gun may have helped, or c) a link to a story about something crazy a GCA person or politician says? Are those "ad homs" against gun control advocates?

It's an ad hom because it attacks the argument by attacking people advocating the argument - in particular, cherry-picked extremists. An anecdote arguing for gun control would be an example of someone getting murdered with a gun.

How is someone being a racist, homophobic, and sexist petultant child entertaining to you?

Huh? I thought that person was saying that women and gays should compromise only as an analogy to gun control advocates saying gun owners should compromise to argue that the latter is just as wrong as the former. But maybe I misread it.

(I’m assuming at this point that everyone who works for the TSA is a homo or a dyke. If they have a job where they get paid low wages to grope non-criminals’ genitals, they’re either pathetic and desperate, or faggots.)(And the offensive terminology is deliberate. A gay man consorts with other gay men. Grabbing non-consenting adults or children makes one a faggot.)

Also, don’t forget off duty harassment. “Oh, you work for TSA? You fucking child-molesting faggot. Get away from me.”

Make them hate their jobs. If they’re honest, it gives them a reason to refuse to comply with outrageous regulations. If not, it encourages them to quit and find something more respectable, like sucking off Asian sailors in Long Beach.

I don't know what separates this awful blog from the rest of the Internet cesspool, but presumably Arsinius M thought there was something remarkable (and redeemable) to link it in this thread.

How is that different than when someone posts a rando story in which a) someone with a gun may have helped stopped a crime, or b) a story about a crime in which a person with a gun may have helped, or c) a link to a story about something crazy a GCA person or politician says? Are those "ad homs" against gun control advocates?

It's an ad hom because it attacks the argument by attacking people advocating the argument - in particular, cherry-picked extremists. An anecdote arguing for gun control would be an example of someone getting murdered with a gun.

Yeah, that's not cool. I have no idea what else is posted on that blog, other than what I said: some recent posts at the top that were entertaining reading related to gun rights vs gun control. Though I'm sorry you failed to grasp the rather valid argument he made regarding the inconsistencies in treatment of gun control vs other rights.